Oh yeah for sure, that sounds way more likely my reply is more in following with the other posters “Trump will go full Nazi” hypothesis. Just seems like fascism has a specific way of working that’s more complex than “kill every out group”.

Someone educated can correct me but that doesn’t sound accurate. Even if it Trump were to go full hitler (which is dumb for an aspiring autocrat in this day and age) it wouldn’t work like that. They’d denigrate all non whites but have a specific target group that they persecute/kill. The group needs to be specific for fascism so they can have a sacrificial goat to blame everything on.

OBS offers practically the same experience with its replay buffer and only uses single digit percent overhead for CPU. Shadow play is maybe slightly more convenient that’s all I can really say about it as it’s been a while.

Excuse me, don’t you mean they bitched about cost before the roll out, stopped the rollout, then promised a cheaper solution (MTM as you mention) that retained old shitty infrastructure and then it still cost $11 billion more than the initial FTTP proposal due to cost blowouts. All in the name of partisan politics.

I agree, I trust LNP and by extension Dutton as much as that party deserves with proposals like this, fuck all. They didn’t even have any figures for the project cost when he proposed it.

As someone who grew up in the bush with shit internet until their late teens I’ll probably never get over the nbn fuckup.

Same here, a complete coincidence I’m sure.

Man in who lives in active war zone because he refused to evacuate thinks large scale death and destruction is the solution.

Typical, I have relatives like this. Old, washed up blokes with fuck all going on in their lives but get angry at things and people. Too old to be sent off to die in wars so of course they advocate for it at the smallest perceived slight (and never signed up when they could have either). Too arrogant for introspection or the barest amount of empathy.

There are royal prisons? Even with the head of state I would have thought they would drop the “her majesty’s” from stuff like jail/prison.

Any news article reporting on such an event must use the qualifier “allegedly” until the perpetrator is convicted of a crime. This is just literally correct as until they’re convicted they’re only alleged to have committed a crime. Media complies with this because even if they have a video maybe the case goes south and the guy in the video ducks the charge. Then he could bring legal action against anyone who definitively said he did something as opposed to using allegedly.

The article is scarce on details but it sounds like police and public prosecutors have woken up to the case and are investigating avenues of prosecution. Definitely not a lawyer, don’t believe anything I say at face value.

We learnt this stuff as kids. Not even from the US but grew up on farm. Well before we were ever trusted to touch a rifle we were told time and time again these stories about brothers (or friends) playing with a gun, one of them points the gun at the other and pulls the trigger; killing the brother/friend.

It’s not on the kid(s), it’s on the responsible adult. If you have firearms around, even if they’re not intended to be used by everyone, everyone in proximity to them should be taught gun safety and the firearm stored securely.

Well you neither said this, and it was in response to someone explaining that they shouldnt be punished because it was an accident and thus a victimless crime.

It’s implied with my previous remarks. It being an accident/mistake is synonymous with pleading ignorance in this instance.

Of course it is up to local law enforcement. I’ve seen no one argue or suggest otherwise.

People saying it’s harmless or a simple mistake are actively undermining local law enforcement whether they know it or not. I’ve seen this countless times before. People get charged with crimes overseas, some that perhaps they wouldn’t at home. Then rather it being a simple matter of if said person did what they’re accused of doing it becomes “oh this countries law are ridiculous, this person simply didn’t know, local law enforcement is corrupt” and so on. Whatever it takes to remove accountability of the person and blame the host country or its law enforcement either directly or indirectly.

I guess what I’m arguing is if you can’t check your bags, read a foreign travel advisory or even pay attention to intercom announcements while you touch down; don’t come crying foul play to the consulate with your drug charge expecting to get a clemency plea. Just to be oddly specific.

My point is being ignorant is insufficient a defence for these type of offences. My opinion of whether they “deserve” it isn’t really relevant. The law is the law. If I get fucked up and drove; I could claim it was a stupid mistake and no one was harmed if I got pulled over and arrested. That doesn’t really matter and isn’t why it’s a law. I believe they should be charged and given lighter sentences and/or the US should apply for clemency on their behalf but my point remains it’s the discretion of local law enforcement.

I mean, you’re travelling internationally, check your damn bag. You think if a couple of Turkish dudes got caught with ammo in their luggage they’d do great in the states? Don’t like getting in trouble overseas? Don’t break the laws overseas.

I think getting smacked with a cane for smoking weed is dumb. Still won’t catch me with weed in Singapore though. Best believe I triple checked my bags when I left Europe too.

“behavioral finance” code word for psychological manipulation

Funnily enough that’s exactly how I interpret “former monetisation manager at Meta” as well.

The reason I ask is it’s common Russian disinformation to claim US or NATO violated this agreement; justifying the Russian federations invasion of Ukraine.

Care to elaborate? Who is violating the Budapest accords memorandum in your view?

Sure. However, the two aren’t unrelated. Not that it justifies the harassment you’ve seen (which as mentioned mods are pretty solid on most instances but reports help them a lot). Given what shitshow it turned into it’s clear that more conversations around the topic are needed. I think those type of people will still pop their head up. When they do, if the entire conversation isn’t already a shitfight because of how it was initiated, these type will be easier to identify and ban. Focusing solely on the outcome and ignoring how we got here only ensures it will be repeated. Lemmy is growing still, there will be challenges on the way.

The bear scenario is the perfect division inducing shitstorm.

It’s understandable what the memes portrays the danger that women face, daily. The fact that they frequently don’t feel comfortable or even just basic safety is definitely valid and worth discussion.

However, the bear vs man thing was just the worst vehicle to induce that discussion. On one is side men who may not be the most well informed about women issues; will get immediately defensive at being compared to a large animal known for tearing people apart and eating them alive.

The members of the otherside who see all the angry men getting defensive at them for expressing this view and think it’s purely because they aren’t empathetic to these issue, they “hate” women or they’re marginalising what is a real and daily danger.

Of course there are actual troll, toxic arsehole and people who have 0 interest actual discourse or understanding but fuck them, I agree ban em.

It was never going to end in a productive, calm or rational discussion and frankly I think tarring the entire of lemmy for it is equally as unproductive. I’ve seen plenty of people initially aggressive to the meme, come around. I’ve seen more and more people make light joke about the same meme without the accusatory tone. If you want discourse there space to do; it just has to be done better. Preferably without snark or accusatory tones.

I entirely agree and appreciate the sentiment but this person has a history of this and just accusing anyone who makes that suggestion with whatever comes to mind. IRL I’m all for it but at some point as more and more people become aware of this poster pattern of behaviour it become disruptive to the community and the repeated negative pushback can’t be healthy or helping to the poster.

You realise this persons account is also older than yours right?

I wouldn’t bother. They frequently accuse people of creating alts to harass them. Despite the fact that the majority of said accounts are older than theirs.

Edited to remove a potentially unhealthy toxic sarcastic remark.